First of all, I didn’t set a red line; the world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war.

Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that — in a piece of legislation titled the Syria Accountability Act — that some of the horrendous things that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for.

And so when I said in a press conference that my calculus about what’s happening in Syria would be altered by the use of the chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn’t something I just kind of made up. I didn’t pluck it out of thin air. There’s a reason for it. That’s point number one.

Point number two — my credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’s credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.

That was President Barack Obama speaking yesterday in Stockholm, answering a reporter’s question about Syria and his credibility. So in pushing back against the isolation of his Coalition of 1.5 with France, did Obama deny his own words from about a year ago when he was running hard for re-election?

I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation. But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical. That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.

We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.

Q So you’re confident it’s somehow under — it’s safe?

THE PRESIDENT: In a situation this volatile, I wouldn’t say that I am absolutely confident. What I’m saying is we’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans. We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that’s a red line for us and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons. That would change my calculations significantly.

I can’t believe we’re going to spend time debating the meaning of “us.”

Actually, there’s a way for Obama to argue that his two statements do not contradict. He could point out that all that treaty and congressional law stuff is so well known and understood, he didn’t believe he needed to get into it back in August 2012, when he mentioned the whole “red line” thing.

He could do that to a televised joint session of Congress or in a televised address from the Oval Office, as he makes his case to, well, everyone who opposes him. According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll this week, that would be Republicans, Democrats and independents, all by double-digit margins.

Governing by poll is not leadership, no, but polls like this can influence legislators who have spent recent weeks in their districts, hearing roughly the same thing from constituents. And since Obama insists his surprising decision to take the Syria question to Congress was no “empty exercise,” it seems like a fight worth winning.

To him. To the world. To someone.

Based on my risk-reward equation, this attack is a lousy idea. But so was Libya, and look how well (sarcasm alert) that turned out. I’m not sure why I must be the only one who learned all those lessons we supposedly learned from Iraq (and Afghanistan), but I’ll leave the hawks to their hawking, for now.

“Leadership sometimes means stepping forward for what’s right, even when no one else follows,” we wrote. If the U.N. Security Council, the Arab League, the U.S. Congress and the world’s nations (other than France) are among those refusing to follow, then what?

Top Picks

Comments

To post a comment, log into your chosen social network and then add your comment below. Your comments are subject to our Terms of Service and the privacy policy and terms of service of your social network. If you do not want to comment with a social network, please consider writing a letter to the editor.

ArchivesAbout this blog

About this Blog

The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board was the first editorial board in the nation to use a blog to openly discuss hot topics and issues among its members and with readers. Our intent is to pull back the curtain on the daily process of producing the unsigned editorials that reflect the opinion of the newspaper, and to share analysis and opinion on issues of interest to board members and invited guest bloggers.